Posted on 08/14/2006 6:46:49 PM PDT by elhombrelibre
You ask a very good question, DoughtyOne. You asked, "Who pray tell is going to disarm Hezbollah?" I have two questions. First, can a terrorist organization such as Hezbollah ever be completely disarmed? Also, what is it that Israel could have done to "completely disarm" Hezbollah throughout Lebanon with regards to this current dilemma?
Actually, I have a third question, "what is it, that Israel could have done in this situation, that would have brought about applause rather than the condemnation they are receiving from some of our FRiends?
Bush gave Israel more time than was needed. Israel went in fits and starts. That crap of going in, then coming right back out again was stupid. They should have been at the river and had Hezbollah cut off day 10 max. If you are going to take Vienna take Vienna.
This is a long and excellent piece. Podhoretz has nailed it.
You missed the finer point, here. The states voted. The terrorist army was not there. As a state department spokesman said today of Nasrallah, "He's hiding in a hole or basement somewhere." If you don't understand that the war on terrorism has gained its worldwide support as a fight to protect the state system against its terrorist enemies, then you really don't know what is going on.
In past wars Israel reacted with lightening fast precision, sending in ground troops in large enough numbers to take and control all the land it needed to.
It was fairly clear from the start that you had to secure at least the territory that would put the Katushas out of range. If the ante was upped, Israel may have needed to expand that distance.
The Bekaa Valley was known to be a training groud for Hezbollah. That too should have been seized, all terrorist camps and munitions destroyed.
It wasn't until about a week ago that one of the major bridges into Syria was blown up. That should have gone out on day one. Other routes into Syria had been taken out earlier. All should have been.
It's also utterly amazing that Israel allowed the Hezbollah operatives to continue to fire missiles into Israel up until just a few days ago. That territory should have been secured weeks ago.
I'm not the only person saying this. Folks are correct thinking Israel should have wrapped this puppy up in four weeks. I think that's a little harsh, but it's more on the right track than what has acually taken place.
ElMort is going to be out of office within 90 days IMO.
IMO, that U.N. force is going to be put in place and Hezbollah will continue to fire missiles over their position into Israel.
When they do, those who sought the ceasefire are going to look rather silly.
You watch what kind of sentiment comes out of Israel as soon as hostilities settle down a little more. I think it will echo my sentiments.
I can't argue with the points you made, DoughtyOne. I sure appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions. I wish I could come up with answers as easily as I can come up with questions. LOL...sigh God protect Israel from terrorists and those who don't know how to fight them. Amen.
Those of you who think it was some brilliant piece of gamesmanship are the same ones who applauded Bush when he signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill into law, just KNOWING that he did it with the assumption that the SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional.
He, and you, were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
The only way there will ever be peace in the middle east is if the Israelis completely destroy all those that attack them. This will never happen without a no-holds barred war. The more we urge restraint (to the contrary of our own stated policy on terrorism) the longer we will be waiting for peace.
Every time we urge Israel to hold back, for PC reasons, the longer we extend the conflict and perpetuate terrorism.
Once upon a time, it took Israel 6 days to kick the back sides of several different muslim countries. This was before PC poisoned the planet.
long but worthwhile
Is the Bush Doctrine Dead?
Has the need for it died?
“giving futility its chance.”
I like that.
"I suggest you read the article. "
Well, you are right I didn't read it but I will, and maybe it will change my mind. But aside from Iraq and even Lebanon I see Bush as not fully committed to his "with us or with the terrorists" stand.
CAIR, etc are with the terrorists, but they are allowed to carry on. Mike Wallace, OBVIOUSLY with the terrorists, but he is not condemned. The leakers to and the leak printers at the NY Times, etc. continue unscathed as they provide true aid to the terrorists. And, needless to say, young men from the terrorist harboring states of the world continue to arrive in droves, as we can see from the missing 11 Egyptians, under false pretenses and bound for who really knows where and who really knows what.
All these things to me should be part of the Bush doctrine, but they are not. I cannot think of any politician who has the nerve to make them part of a Bush Doctrine Part Deux.
As for Israel, it is hard to think they are really serious, I'd like to see them at least instate the death penalty if for no other reason to take the jihadis off the table as "hostages". What, only Eichman deserved to die? Everybody else can live out their days on the Israeli taxpayer's dime?
Time will tell and I can only suppose our civilization will be given many more opportunities to really get serious about the Islamofacists who would kill or subjagate us all. It's just too bad a lot of people will have to die in the process.
I love President Bush, I voted for him twice, but to a large extent I think he has been unrealistic about our enemy and too optimistic about what will work. He really doesn't want to crush the Islamic world and I don't think anything else will really get the job done.
So maybe it's not an ex-doctrine, maybe it was a half-baked doctrine from the start.
The Military has long taught the Principles of Mass. It is a shame that politicians, most with no idea as most never served, aren't required to learn those same Principles.
In case you are interested you can get a quick lesson here: Principles of Mass - US Army FM 105 - as taught at the Army War College.
No matter what the military engagement if the Principles are employed we simply put off today what must be eventually done if we are to prevail.
Just my $0.02.
Greg Adams
Brownsville, TX (on the other front line)
I think part of the problem is the means do not fit the goals. If we want to stop Iran, we must stop Syria. If we want to succeed in Iraq, we must stop Syria. We cannot allow Syria to be a safe haven for terrorists who kill Americans in Iraq and who kill Lebanese in Lebanon and Israelis in Israel. Someone has to beat this drum. Syria is the conduit through which terrorist flow to Iraq. It's where they're armed to fight in Lebanon and Iraq. If we're serious about protecting freedom in those areas and stopping terrorism, then Assad's policies must be changed. He's not being held accountable by the UN for his murder of the prominent Lebanese leader (name?) whom Assad murdered last year. The American public needs to be made aware of Syria's role and how it's supports Iran's global terror network. We cannot fight the symptoms of the illness of terrorism when we ignore the cause. We, the free people of the world in the US, and Europe especially, need to recognize the spoiler role Assad plays while his ?Allawite dictatorship subjugates the Syrian people. The egg of oppression is not that hard to crack if we have the will to do it. To allow him to perpetuate his terror campaign and thus to assist Iran, is to commit a sin of omission. The blood of the innocent is on Iran and Syria's hands, but by turning a blind eye we enable their evil.
Podhoretz is brilliant.
In post 8 you chastise the U.S. for it's role in the UN vote, then in post 20 you appear to think the vote a prudent one, being necessary to counter Iran in the near future.
Read it again. As often as necessary.
No need to reread anything. You contradicted yourself.
Anyone literate would read this
"The US is looking to get a UN resolution regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. "
as referring to another resolution in the future.
"...if we have the will to do it. "
This is the crux of the matter, WILL. As long as we remain unwilling to say we are better then they are, our way is better than theirs, we SHOULD win and they SHOULD lose, we are sunk. We should have gone into Iraq and bound that nation down with chains, then little by little, as it suited us and as circumstances warrented, we could have let them have their freedom. Instead we went in and treated them as though they were a bunch of kids involved in a mock constitution exercise. Did Bush, Rumsfeld, et al really think that the terrorists (whom they should have known were there and would come there) would be impressed by a bunch of housewives voting?
These people live to kill housewives, they are not going to be impressed or intimidated by them. They understand one thing, one thing alone, force. Brutal, remorseless, relentless force. If we are not willing to dish that out to the lot of them, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc, etc, etc. we may as well throw in the towel. We're going to have to kill a lot more people than anyone would like before this is over, but that is just the way our enemies have made it.
Btw, I think the murdered Lebanese ex-PM's name was Hariri. I can't for the life of me imagine what is wrong with Lebanon or the Lebanese, that they've let a bunch of terrorists turn their gov't into puppets. But you know, too bad for them, now they can pay the price for their stupidity, that is my view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.